I wonder how much relief they would have gotten if they just bit the bullet and had taken OU and oSu. Two games that would have put them into the CTZ where there could have been more leverage for the conference to field earlier games. Putting programs of that notoriety into the conference would have resulted in the conference getting to tear up the old contract and renegotiate a new one.

This is why I can't take the endless Chicken Little fanspeak about the ACC and Big XII issues too seriously...the PAC is having some serious, real issues. What, they didn't see this coming? That they could have addressed this by relenting on Oklahoma State? These guys? The network isn't going to force more money down their way if the product doesn't sell, and the schools need better minds to think this rationally through. Something's going to have to give on the PAC's end...it's not the networks' fault.

The Pac12 not taking the OU-OSU does look like a head scratcher. There was some indication that decision was made because it did not include Texas without the LHN stuff. But the PAC12 is mostly made up of 'combos' in format, and it's hard to see a better combo available other than OU/OSU. That certainly would render the PAC12 CTZ exposure with quality content. But the refusal may be placed on those two or three or so PAC12 schools inherently resistant to expansion due to elitist attitudes and fear of changing the west coast dynamics. They even undermined a potentially lucrative 'coop' agreement with the B1G---and that certainly would have added to a slate of ETZ and CTZ games. One has to think the PAC12 is engaged in 'protectionism' and institutional selfishness a bit too much whereby they miss taking advantage of certain new economic opportunities.

With any new expansion, the PAC12 is going to also fret about divisions. All the members apparently want those games in southern California for exposure, gate receipts, and recruitment. If SEC, B1G, and ACC divisional set-ups have generated varying levels of complications and fuss, one can imagine the higher level of compromise it would take for the PAC12 to deal with 14 or 16 members.

Texas will be Texas and who knows what they would have done had OU/OSU left. Following those two could have been among the options with certain compromising. What is also known is the SEC talked with OU about being #14 prior to the Mizzou addition. The SEC was not going to take two from the same state, and the resolve of OU to go there alone was not evident or simply OU did not want to be in the SEC. And, it is known that the B1G has 'studied' OU in formulating a potential future expansion plan.

In the PAC12's case, an in-state pair could be positive. Depth with an extension that far would be important. Something is lost when a prime rival is not included.Also, had the PAC12 taken OU/OSU, and prime Texas schools were not available for further inclusion, the PAC12 could have found a couple more (to 16) in the western region to fill in the geographic gaps to make an even more vast, but congruent, conference.

But the refusal may be placed on those two or three or so PAC12 schools inherently resistant to expansion due to elitist attitudes and fear of changing the west coast dynamics. They even undermined a potentially lucrative 'coop' agreement with the B1G---and that certainly would have added to a slate of ETZ and CTZ games. One has to think the PAC12 is engaged in 'protectionism' and institutional selfishness a bit too much whereby they miss taking advantage of certain new economic opportunities.

Larry Scott should have resigned from his post after the multi-sport B1G-PAC arrangement crumbled because of USC and Stanford football commitments to Notre Dame. Seriously, the great, ambitious ideas and whatnot have been batted down for the dumbest reasons. Maybe at that kind of level of income, I could have a thicker skin, but I don't want to be remembered more for what I couldn't do rather than what I did.

And what he's done is get a decent media contract...as everyone is getting these days. The network's been plagued with issues. PAC-16 only netted Colorado and Utah. B1G-PAC. Texas-LHN. Walking away from Oklahoma. Bad TV spots. Even worse attendance issues. Sagging basketball. NCAA investigations into top football programs. That's all under Larry, though not technically his fault. Although, I'm sure someone out that way will say it's his crazy to manage. Sounds close to the PAC-way.

But the refusal may be placed on those two or three or so PAC12 schools inherently resistant to expansion due to elitist attitudes and fear of changing the west coast dynamics. They even undermined a potentially lucrative 'coop' agreement with the B1G---and that certainly would have added to a slate of ETZ and CTZ games. One has to think the PAC12 is engaged in 'protectionism' and institutional selfishness a bit too much whereby they miss taking advantage of certain new economic opportunities.

Larry Scott should have resigned from his post after the multi-sport B1G-PAC arrangement crumbled because of USC and Stanford football commitments to Notre Dame. Seriously, the great, ambitious ideas and whatnot have been batted down for the dumbest reasons. Maybe at that kind of level of income, I could have a thicker skin, but I don't want to be remembered more for what I couldn't do rather than what I did.

And what he's done is get a decent media contract...as everyone is getting these days. The network's been plagued with issues. PAC-16 only netted Colorado and Utah. B1G-PAC. Texas-LHN. Walking away from Oklahoma. Bad TV spots. Even worse attendance issues. Sagging basketball. NCAA investigations into top football programs. That's all under Larry, though not technically his fault. Although, I'm sure someone out that way will say it's his crazy to manage. Sounds close to the PAC-way.

If OU and OSU had joined the PAC12, then Texas Tech could have been offered as well which then the PAC could have pretended to be in talks with KU which would have forced Texas to move.

No way does Texas stay in a conference with TCU, Baylor, KSU, ISU, and WVU. Pressure from Tech fans, OU/OSU fans (yes there are many of them in the State of Texas), and even Texas fans would have forced the issue; however I'm sure Stanford/USC didn't think that in the worst case scenario (Texas stays in the B12 or goes SEC/B1G/ACC/Indy) that OU/KU are worth expanding with Texas Tech or OSU. Without Texas it would have been hard to get everyone on board and even harder to convince Utah/Colorado to give up LA/PHX for Lubbock/Stillwater/Norman/Lawrence.

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

The reality is time zones. They have to work with it. West coast schools exposure in national telecasts, by circumstances, are going to have limitations in the east. Regional telecasts have served a good purpose for a long time. What the big networks seem to want to do more frequently is have 'national telecasts' of 'featured' games they focus on marketing beforehand. For them, they weigh that cost against resources that have to be devoted to regional programming.

Outside the really big names on the west coast, there may be a bit of under-valuing due to limited eastern exposure. On the other hand, there is certainly the 'hype' given to a few west coast schools that often get over-stated. After all, California is the most populous state, along with some very significant metro areas elsewhere in the far west. How many times in the recent era has the sports media in the pre-season labeled the University of Southern California as having the team of decade, or even the century, and then to see such hype prove to come up way short of the portrayal?

The comparative population factor, alone, is a greater challenge to most of the Mountain West types.

I think what it means is that when the next major round of P5 realignment occurs in 2025-2027, we should expect the PAC to go large, to about 18 schools, with all the new schools in CTZ and ETZ. For example, consider adding Texas, Kansas, Iowa State, Notre Dame, Pitt, and one other. (Of course Notre Dame would insist on having football games against USC, Stanford, and Texas every year, plus other demands, but it would give them the desired national footprint.) The PAC could schedule to ensure at least one school in each time zone has a home game every week, in all sports.

The fact is that any expansion without Texas was going to be dead in the water. The PAC-12 has these following things going for it.

1. The California Schools will not give up playing eachother. This was quite evident when the schedule for the PAC-12 came out with scheduling protections for the 4 California Schools.

2. The Northwest Schools will not give up even more games playing in Southern California. They gave up a lot last time to make the PAC-12 work. There is no way that they'd give up even more time in one of the biggest recruiting grounds that they have to make the PAC-16 work.

3. In an expansion to 16, the old PAC-8 would insist on staying together, which would mean that the population base, would be moved to one division. This would have to be countered by adding an population counterweight to California. About the only population base that makes that possible is if you add the entire state of Texas, by adding the Texas Longhorns.

4. The Longhorn Network will never be converted into a PAC-12 network (which at that point would be PAC-16). The PAC-12 networks are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the conference. The Longhorn Network is owned partially by non-conference. Now, that being said, if the Longhorns were to get out of the LHN, and join the PAC-12, the PAC-16 would probably launch the PAC-16 Network - Texas. Also, Texas's counter-proposal on that was laughable. It was "We'll keep all the revenues from the LHN. And if the PAC-12 Networks would have made us more money than the LHN, then we want a share of that as well. However, we will not give up any of the revenues on the LHN if the PAC-12 networks don't make as much money."

So, let's give two hypothetical solutions...

LHN makes 50 million, PAC-12 Networks make 40 million per school... - Texas gets 50 million, every other school gets 40 million.LHN makes 50 million, PAC-12 Networks make 60 million per school... - Texas and every other school gets 59.375 million.

Texas wanted to eat it's cake, and have it too.

There was probably a proposal from the PAC-12 that Texas gets rid of the LHN network (probably even some money offered to get them out of that contract with ESPN), at which point the PAC-12 would add to their networks two additional networks launched - PAC-16 Texas, and PAC-16 Oklahoma (to go along with PAC-16 Oregon, PAC-16 Washington, PAC-16 Bay Area, PAC-16 Los Angeles, PAC-16 Arizona, and PAC-16 Mountain).

Considering there wasn't a firm agreement between the Big XII schools until before last season, had OU bolted west (had the PAC wanted the OK pair), I think Texas would have been forced to be a bit more flexible or liberal with its LHN holdings. That the PAC would have had a reach into the CTZ, Texas' leverage was severely diminished, and the kind of terms the Big XII would have gotten from any network was not going to be enough to keep the group together for very long.

That kind of hypothetical...it makes the PAC look very weak. Just because they couldn't have Texas when they wanted them, what, they didn't think of the long-term prospects?

Considering there wasn't a firm agreement between the Big XII schools until before last season, had OU bolted west (had the PAC wanted the OK pair), I think Texas would have been forced to be a bit more flexible or liberal with its LHN holdings. That the PAC would have had a reach into the CTZ, Texas' leverage was severely diminished, and the kind of terms the Big XII would have gotten from any network was not going to be enough to keep the group together for very long.

That kind of hypothetical...it makes the PAC look very weak. Just because they couldn't have Texas when they wanted them, what, they didn't think of the long-term prospects?

The Pac-12 getting the Oklahomas potentially frees Texas to eventually go West, and that was a consideration, I'm sure. The Pac-12 getting the Oklahomas also potentially frees Texas to go East, and I'm sure that was a concern.

It's possible the Pac-12 went for the money because they know damn well their bargaining power IS diminished by the time zone no matter what they do. The Oklahomas... are 2 schools really the basis by which a whole dynamic is changed?

My recollection of the re-cap after the aborted "Pac-16" expansion was this:

It didn't have the votes.It became apparent that the conference divisions would be the old Pac-8 (west) and then AU, ASU, CU, UU, OU, OSU, TT and TEXAS (east).

An apparently AU, ASU, CU, and UU had no deisre to be in a situation where they were dominated by the circus that surrounds the University of Texas.

If Texas really wanted the PAC-16, they probably could have worked something out with regard to the LHN, since ESPN is a bradcast partner of the PAC.But their prospective division mates greatly prefered an association with California and NOT Texas.

But their prospective division mates greatly prefered an association with California and NOT Texas.

I expect this was definitely a big issue. Basically, the 'east-type' division would have to play within their group with limited/minimal cross-overs into California. Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona two would not care for that. Plus, Texas, Oklahoma, etc., would want assured regular play in Los Angeles and the Bay area as well.

Such makes one wonder, if California is that grand to play there, maybe schools such as SDSU need to be a part of their future expansion?

These versions have some truth to them, but the LHN wasn't around during the first PAC16 talks.

Colorado nor Utah had a vote, it was just Arizona/ASU vs the PAC8.

But TAMU whined and ESPN bribed UT w/ the LHN so it fell through and the Big 12 was saved.

W/O ESPN and the LHN, I think you would have seen a PAC16 w/ Kansas assuming texas was still on board.

During round 2, Colorado/Utah had votes, but from what was reported Standford/USC/Cal/UCLA all said no to Oklahoma as OSU's academics weren't going to fly as a stand alone add unless they weresimply another chip to get Texas. Also Colorado and Utah voted no as they were afraid they'd might get pair with the PAC12 North to balance out the divisions as OU/OSU would have most likely join USC/UCLA, AZ/ASU in the South with just 1 of the Mtn schools.

When round two got around to Texas, UT didn't want to give up the LHN, and the PAC12 didn't want to make an exception for them when they had to play hard ball for year with USC/UCLA in order to get them all to agree to equal revenue sharing.

I do agree that the issue now would be mostly based around divisions but that too could be resolved with a pod structure or by expanding to 18 w/ Kansas and K State thus keeping the Arizona's and the old PAC8 happy, only Utah and Colorado would vote no, and Utah could be persuaded (w/ promises from the AAU's members to use their 9 votes and power/infuence persuade the other 52 to get them in before anyone else).

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

The Oklahomas... are 2 schools really the basis by which a whole dynamic is changed?

I don't know...considering they came to the PAC, even if OU binding itself to oSu was a sticking point for OU, it still sounded like the PAC had the majority of the say in the negotiations. The PAC wasn't dealing with a LHN-holding Texas and its miles-long list of demands, but Oklahoma and their State issue. What dynamic would have changed?

To me, when you have a bunch of schools trying to resist expansion because of protecting the over-saturation of one market, that doesn't speak strength to me, either. Getting Oklahoma, even if only the pair of OK schools, meant getting into Texas the same way the Big 8 schools used to do masterfully. Expansion has been about branching out into markets and recruiting pools. The PAC turned down one of the biggest pay-days they could have possibly enjoyed because of, among other reasons, non-CA schools demanding their share of multiple trips into California?

1. CA Schools. The CA Schools made it very clear when the divisions were split that they would not give up playing eachother. That screwed the Northwest Schools, who allowed everybody else to have yearly games in Southern California to make it work. Do you really think that the Northwest Schools would go from playing a LA school every year (and playing there every other year) to playing an LA school every 2.5 years, and playing there every 5 years?

Current schedule5 division games4 inter-divisional games

The LA schools are5 Division Games2 Protected Cross-Divisional2 games split between the other 4 teams.

Remember, if you have a 9-game schedule, and keep there, here's what you have for the LA schools

So, each of the northwest teams would play each school twice (4 games total) in 10 years. That means on average, they'd do a trip to Southern California every 5 years.

Like I said, you'd need a counter-balance to California, and then switch California all over one division. That counterbalance is Texas. That's the only counter-balance that would work, and then go off into an East-West Split, or a POD split if needed.

So, with just taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St., you have a situation where either the California Schools would have to give up their protected status to play eachother, or the Northwest Schools would need to give up even more time in Southern California, all for some sort of hope that Texas would see the light, give up the LHN, and come west with Hat-in-hand?

That's just it. They're fighting for more California, even if everybody gets into California based on the north/south split.

The PAC is not the B1G and SEC. Those guys operate knowing there isn't one "money" state all schools need to be seen, even if there are actually are (FL and now TX in the SEC, IL and now the 95-corridor in the B1G) or hubs they'd like to see regularly. To that extent, the current PAC looks like old Big XII...where Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma look like the Cal-4, getting what they wanted, and the others are looking in and wanting their "fair share."

If schools can't be more flexible, or take a more collectivist mindset, you're on the path for destruction. Even if the PAC eventually gets its prize in Austin, it may still only be a band-aid treatment for something that requires surgery.

The PAC-12 knew that it couldn't put all of their major media markets in one division. Neither the SEC, the ACC (which went for a zipper split), or the Big Ten (which split it's major Chicago market, put Detroit in one division) did this.

The problem comes with the PAC-12. You have a situation where half of the population of the conference is in one state. If you throw them into one division all by themselves, then you have to have double the population in one division, then you have in another.

The SEC didn't have the choice to divide Florida. They only had one team in Florida.

The Big Ten divided a lot of the big states into each division. The Legends division got Michigan. The Leaders Division got Pennsylvania and Ohio. Both divisions got Illinois.

The ACC decided to go to a zipper-split to increase exposure of everybody everywhere within the conference.

With the PAC-12, you have the following: half of the population of the conference is going around 1 state (California, 53 million is hard to overcome). If you put them all in one division, then no matter what teams you put with them, you're going to get an extremely limited access to both the most fertile recruiting bed, and also the vast majority of the population within the conference. The PAC-12 saw what happened to the Big-12 when it formed. When the Big-12 formed, everybody marvelled about the northern division, with Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Kansas in it. They thought that it would be the better division. Over the course of time, because of the fact that most of the population was in the southern half, and most also one of the most fertile recruiting beds was in the south division, you had the dominance of the South division, and fade away of the north division. The PAC-12 did not want that to happen with them.

They split the media markets. The two biggest media markets (Los Angeles, and San Francisco) were split between the two divisions.

Now, if the Texhoma 4 come to the PAC-12, the population between the two divisions will be roughly equal. The media markets will be split, they'll have two fertile recruiting beds that are split between the two conferences. This would not have happened by just taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

The PAC12 coaches are complaining about the SEC's scheduling format which is not 9 as the the PAC12 has adopted. The SEC Presidents decided on the 6-1-1 with a new requirement that all members play one opponent each season from the other power 5 conferences. It's not what all members wanted per numbers and rotations, but it was done to protect certain yearly in-conference and OOC rivalries.

To my knowledge, there are no bowl games set-up between the PAC12 and the SEC. So, the posturing would relate specifically to the future play-offs. The PAC12 is highly "paired" with all wanting games in California. Colorado and Utah have in-state OOC rivalries to maintain somewhat, but those are not technically classified as power 5 opponents. Otherwise, the PAC12 is nil on having to accommodate in-state OOC's that come from other power 5 conferences. What's comfortable for the Oregon schools may not be the format best applicable for another conference school elsewhere.

Stanford references their annual game with Notre Dame as a must. Southern Cal does the same. Here again, Notre Dame is injected into somebody's argument that they are scheduling above everyone else, this time making a comparison to SEC scheduling.

Southern Cal and Stanford valued their ongoing series with Notre Dames so much, they negated the efforts to have a lucrative 'coop' agreement between the PAC12 and the BIG. This looks more as selfishness on the part of Stanford and USC, and counter to the overall interests of the PAC12. Then, it's Stanford bashing another power conference about scheduling? Stanford has Cal-Davis scheduled along with Army in 2014 with USC wedged between the two to start their season. At least Cal-Davis would be off of any B1G future scheduling.

The lust for Notre Dame has ruined potential scheduling agreements between the PAC12 and the BIG, and the SEC and the ACC. The Big12 courting and fruitlessly waiting on Notre Dame earlier, was alleged to have caused the conference to miss out on other expansion opportunities.

Notre Dame wants football recruits on the west coast and the south, and PAC12 and the ACC oblige, giving up significant opportunities for themselves. Maybe Stanford, USC, and the ACC see it's worth it in their own battles to challenge Purdue for northern Indiana recruits-- sigh?

Conferences are not equal in strength nor does everyone play everyone else. Uniform scheduling formats won't force equality either. And while the B12 is commended for their 9 game round-robin, conference schedule, the hurdle of a CCG is excluded. That's their choice.

If the PAC12 wants to make a bigger difference, do it by example rather than putting on a bitterness show about another conference. It seems they have some internal issues of their own to settle first, beginning with who really runs this conference?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum